Yeah, I'm sure it's all the unions' fault that hostess makes some of the most unhealthy food you can get.

I'm sure the execs who made the decision to not sell anything healthy, even when America was clearly moving towards healthier eating, took the same cuts they are asking the bakers to take, right?

I don't know the specifics behind this strike. I do know that all of the things hostess is famous for, are things I wouldn't let my kids eat all the time. And that is certainly not something that can be blamed on the bakers union.

Yes, this has everything to do with twinkies and nothing to do with jobs. Would you rather take a bit of a pay cut now and work the pay back to where it was slowly in order to keep your job, or would you rather just stop working now and have the company go under?

Personally I would take the hit and either help the company succeed, or take the hit and use that time to find another job in the industry.
Is it possible the executive team is not taking a hit on their own? Possible. If that is the case, maybe the bakers just want to sock it to the board and executives that are ripping off the company? What is the history there, are they taking pay cuts too? Generally execs make tons more than the working folks, and get way bigger bonuses and all that. I could see reasons for both sides of this story, but will never know without more info which side is more on solid ground here. It's usually somewhere in the middle.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson